Wednesday, June 30, 2010

A movie about Barack Obama’s childhood opened today in Indonesia. It features the future president defending himself against bullies, but also shows how he eventually develops his skills for negotiation and compromise. A 12-year-old mixed-race actor plays the Child Barry. In unrelated news, President Obama is pledging to spend $160 million to aid education in Indonesia, and says he will work to help Indonesia fight climate change.

In other news, Chechen police have been using paintball guns to target unveiled women when they show themselves on the streets. Official posters notify offenders that this is just a warning, and more severe punishment will ensue if women do not conform with recently imposed sharia rules.

Here’s some good news: the Department of Homeland Security has dropped its deportation case against Mosab Hassan Yousef. Mr. Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader, converted to Christianity and went to work for Israeli intelligence before coming to the United States. DHS had previously recommended his deportation due to his “connections with terrorism” — that is, because his daddy is a Hamas leader.

We just received the following blast email from Sarah Stern of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). At hearings before a US immigration Judge in San Diego, today, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that it was dropping its deportation case against former Shin Bet agent, Mosab Hassan Yousef, author of Son of Hamas. According to the San Diego Tribune, the presiding judge granted Yousef, asylum. The efforts of many, including his former Shin Bet handler, have been rewarded with this decision of the DHS. We had been an early advocate for Congressional investigation of this misinformed deportation matter. Sweet reason and moral suasion has prevailed.

Last month we reported on the progress Anjem Choudary, the firebrand radical Islamic leader from the UK, has made in establishing a Belgian version of his Muslim supremacist organization, Sharia4UK.

Now we learn that Mr. Choudary finds Belgium so congenial to his tastes that he is planning to move there. As unlikely as it sounds, he considers Britain to be more restrictive of Muslims than Belgium:

“Belgium is a promising country. In the cities, one third of the population consists of Muslims: that’s unique in Europe!”

During an interview with the Flemish magazine Humo, Anjem Choudary, the leader of the fundamentalist organisation Sharia4UK, announced that he would soon move to Belgium, because “Belgium is better than Great Britain.” “The laws there are less severe. In Belgium, I can say what I believe and do what I want.” According to Choudary, “Belgium is a promising country. If I’m not mistaken, one third of the population in cities as Antwerp and Brussels consists of Muslims, and their number is constantly growing. That’s fabulous! That’s unique in Europe. Those people will no longer tolerate oppression.”

“I’ve been to neighbourhoods that are exclusively Islamic. It’s looking really good”, Choudary says. His intentions are clear as well: “We want the European people to understand that Islam is not just about spirituality, but it is a complete model of society, just like capitalism or communism […] Islam is not a foreign invader: for centuries, we have controlled large parts of Europe. Spain, Portugal, the Balkan, parts of Switzerland and Austria,… That time will return.” Even more stunning is what Choudary thinks of terrorism: “There are two kinds of terrorists. The ones that kill innocent civilians, women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are against life. And then there are the terrorists that fight against the enemies of God, the enemies of Allah. They are pro life. Those terrorists are no terrorists.”

It is clear for Vlaams Belang that Anjem Choudary cannot be welcome in Belgium. Choudary, whose organisation is prohibited in Great Britain, is an enemy of our European Society and has to be regarded as an undesirable person. Who calls for violence and who supports, praises and minimizes terrorism has to be refused entrance to our country.

I just got back from the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy, a.k.a. Northern Virginia (Alexandria District). On Monday and Tuesday t was my pleasure and privilege to attend the ACT! For America National Conference and Legislative Briefing, and I’ll be reporting on the event in due course.

By the way, I think it’s hilarious that I wrote Harry Byrd instead of Robert Byrd in my earlier post. It shows that even in my senile dementia I’m a Virginia boy to the core. What other Byrd is there, after all?

Now I have to tackle the email that accumulated while I was gone. Gulp.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Caroline Glick has a new one and it's amusing. Heads are exploding in al-Jazeera's little world. Nor will this one be removed due to some spurious copyright infringement. Her satire is sans sappy music this time.

Instead, she has devised the conceit of a Grand Jihad strategy meeting, one that could have come straight out of the pages of Reliance of the Traveller.

The odd thing is, while I was up in the Baron’s office (re-establishing our connection to the internet satellite after a thunderstorm) I picked up Reliance just to have something to read while waiting for the reboot. The page opened randomly to some advice about when it is permissible for the caliph to use the tactic of a so-called “truce” in order to gain the upper hand in an emergency move. According to the book, this can only be done as a stop-gap measure until the time is right to conquer the infidel.

The verse closes with an admonishment from the Koran that Allah wants Islam to reign supreme. So much for good faith negotiations, hmmm? [No, I don’t have it in front of me, but tomorrow when I have to go upstairs again, I’ll attempt to find the exact quotation. No promises as it’s a very large tome. One no house should be without.]

Besides Caroline Glick’s video in the mail, there was a serendipitous link to Frank Gaffney’s Big Government post from last week, in which he discusses the Supreme Court’s June 22nd ruling on the spurious idea that support may be given to terrorist organizations if maybe they also hand out candy to orphans when they’re not blowing things up.

Hold it right there, said the Supremes…- - - - - - - - -Mr. Gaffney relies on The Investigative Project on Terrorism for the details regarding their decision. He prefaces IPT's details on the ruling this way:

Bad news today [June 22nd] for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

Notice the lopsided 6-3 ruling. This was not a narrow vote. However, I doubt it will stop Mr. Obama for long. He violates our laws with impunity. Why? Because he won - just ask him. In Chicago the winner makes the rules, not the useless legislature. While you're at it, ask him how often he was around during his brief tenure in the Senate. No, he didn't respect it then, either. At least he's consistent.

The Investigative Project lays out the ruling for us:

Under U.S. law, it is a crime for any person to provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. Known as the “material support” law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B has become a cornerstone in U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Since 2001, the U.S. has charged approximately 150 defendants with violations of the statute, and to date approximately 75 people have been convicted.

The statute defines “material support or resources” as:

“any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials” (emphasis added in the original).

The Court began by rejecting the argument which claimed that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment, then it went on discard First Amendment (free speech) notion:

…The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.

Here is the Court’s wording:

“Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further…terrorist activities…: ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”

Amen, brothers.

So Islamists in the U. S. will have to break American law in order to perform zakat by giving material support to terrorists. Well, at least they can't claim injured innocence anymore.

They don’t have to do it this way...except that the Koran tells them to. Zakat is for jihad. Period. If they belonged to a peaceable group rather than “The ‘Religion’ of ‘Peace’” they’d be supporting some of the underfunded NGOs that try to help the endless numbers of sexually abusedwomen and children suffering in Sharia-burdened hellholes.

But don’t hold your breath. As Mr. Gaffney pointed out:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do. It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order. Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

Let’s see how long it takes our President to ignore the ruling of our Supreme Court.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Is the Supreme Court ruling on individual gun ownership “dramatic“? Indeed it is, given the route the majority chose.

Here, on page five of the document,

S MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERSv. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT[June 28, 2010]

we get to the heart of the ruling. It is not the 2nd Amendment itself, but the 14th Amendment, Article 1, which provides the legal buttress for the right to keep and bear arms:

JUSTICE THOMAS agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that was recognized inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller…fully applicable to the States.

However, he asserted, there is a path to this conclusion that is more straightforward and more faithful to the Second Amendment’s text and history. The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721.

But the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which speaks only to “process,” cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’..

The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean…

A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

The opinions broke along predictable lines - i.e., John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer dissented, calling the “historical evidence…ambiguous”…- - - - - - - - -The majority - Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, led by Chief Justice Roberts, were not individually named by the CNN blog report linked above. I don’t understand this omission, given that the dissenters were individually checked off. Is the omission a small but telling point about CNN?

This decision is not the end of it. Perhaps, though, it is the beginning of the end.

Chicago’s strict gun control laws are typical of left wing thinking about the dangers to the public purportedly arising from gun ownership. Chicago persists in this thinking even as illegal gun ownership has made parts of the city prime killing fields for criminals.

The Chicago laws are cynical in the extreme. Note this report, dated in May:

The city’s troubles are so extreme that a pair of state lawmakers are calling on a fellow Democrat, Gov. Pat Quinn, to deploy the National Guard to help restore calm. The latest figures show that Chicago had racked up 122 homicides for the year, exceeding the 116 killings over the comparable period in 2009, a very bad year. Among the top 10 U.S. cities, Chicago is within shooting distance of advancing from second place to win the dubious distinction of being the U.S. murder capital. It’s no coincidence that the Windy City is already the U.S. gun-control capital.

Since 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of handguns and rifles by requiring a convoluted registration process designed to be impossible to complete. Exceptions to the rules enable politicians and their personal friends to own and even carry handguns - but nobody else. This unconstitutional scheme has been a colossal failure.

Just as the Left is blind to the laws of economics, it is equally resistant to learning from experience when it comes to gun ownership. Not so resistant that it prevents those in power from owning weapons, however. Another example of “laws for thee but not for me” so favored by those in control.

Very interesting to see both the majority and Justice Thomas reference the racist roots of gun control so strongly…

His observation reminded me of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, a group of blacks in the South who believed in armed self-defense against an entrenched hatred that often led to killings of innocent black people, particularly black men.

The myth of Martin Luther King’s touted “non-violence” as a way to bring about justice steadfastly ignores the reality of King’s armed body guards and the arsenal of weapons kept in his home - kept there illegally, by the way. Dr. King couldn’t get a gun permit.

Given the times, King’s public image as the American Gandhi was probably good strategy; it reassured the fearful white majority and no doubt prevented much bloodshed. However, the armed “Deacons of Defense” were as vital and necessary a part of the struggle as was Dr. King’s approach.

An isolated farm surrounded by the sudden arrival of truckloads of hatred in the middle of the night could change the equation instantly with the judicious application of one shot over the heads of those hate-mongers. It didn’t solve the problem instantly, but it allowed enough time for the troublemakers to sober up. One armed black farmer lived to plow another day.

This part of black history has been neglected; I hope that the coming generations will pay the respect of close attention due these men.

Here's a reader's review from that page:

This is truly a lost history of the civil rights movement that author Lance Hill has found under the layers upon layers of mainstream narratives which conveniently dictate false truths that - when repeated enough - become larger than life.

Following the organized self-defense philosophy espoused by Robert F. Williams in Monroe, N.C., a small group of men in Jonesboro, Louisiana, founded an organization that had great influence in the civil rights movement of the mid-1960s. The success the Deacons had in defeating the KKK and other haters on the streets by standing up, moving forward and staring them down with guns loaded brought a new sense of empowerment in demanding that justice truly be served today.

When Chicago’s unconstitutional gun control law is finally swept aside, perhaps part of the hoked-up Leftist narrative about Dr. King will go with it.

I have to go away again for a couple of days, so posting will be light.

This time, thank goodness, my journey will involve no airports — just driving through rural Virginia. I won’t have to sort my toiletries or take my shoes off to get where I want to go.

The news feed will be suspended for the duration, but if Dymphna is well enough, she’ll be posting while I’m away.

In the meantime, everyone can discuss the ramifications of the death of Senator Harry Byrd. Will West Virginia be renamed “Harry Byrdia” in his honor? In his absence, who will keep the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan alive in the Democratic Party? How will West Virginians obtain their federal slush funds without him?

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan beheaded a headmaster and burned down two schools. Meanwhile, Islamic schools for women in Pakistan are thriving.

In other news, shoppers in Britain may no longer buy a dozen eggs. In order to comply with EU rules, all food products, even eggs and oranges, must be sold by weight and not by the number in a package.

Kent Ekeroth is the International Secretary for Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats), and will almost certainly become a member of the Swedish parliament after the elections that will be held this coming September. The most recent polls put his party at 5.6%, well above the 4% threshold needed for representation in Parliament.

The Swedish establishment — the major political parties, the media, and academics — is engaged in a blatant no-holds-barred effort to suppress the Sweden Democrats, due to SD’s anti-immigration platform and their uncompromising stance against the Islamization of Sweden. The elites’ goal is to keep SD out of Parliament, but at this point it seems unlikely that they will succeed.

Kent Ekeroth was recently interviewed by Jamie Glazov for Front Page Magazine. Below are some high points from their discussion.

On Multiculturalism in Sweden:

Well, a friend of mine once described Sweden as a “politically correct dictatorship,” which is a rather good description on how far things have gone in Sweden. I can give you a few examples of exactly how far we are talking about. Our prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said the following soon after he was elected in 2006:

“The core Swedish is only barbarism. The rest of the development has come from outside.”

Mona Sahlin, now the party leader of the Social Democrats, which is the largest party in Sweden with about 35% of the votes, said in 2002:

“I think that what makes so many Swedes envious of immigrant groups is, you have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you. And what do we have? Mid-summers’ eve and such ridiculous things.”

The party leader of the Center Party, who is in the current government coalition, said the following:

“It is really not the Swedes that built Sweden. It was people that came from abroad.”

These three quotes are a pretty clear indicator that things have gone very wrong in Sweden. The Swedish media is censoring the fact that the perpetrators of violent crimes are foreigners…

Our courts have even started taking the cultures of perpetrators into account when sentencing. Recently a father got a lower sentence for beating his child with the motivation from the court that “the use of corporal punishment of children is accepted and allowed” in the home country of the father.

First, the media tried silencing us before the 2006 elections. That didn’t work. Then they tried stigmatizing us by calling us racist and the like. That hasn’t really worked. Then they tried to convince people that we were incompetent or unreliable — and that still hasn’t worked. Now they are back to the strategy of trying to silence us. For instance, despite that we are in the polls above the threshold for getting into parliament, we are not invited to the TV-debates before the election. As a comparison, the Green Party, before their entry into the Swedish parliament, were allowed into the debates. But they treat us differently.

Furthermore, they try attacking the funding for our party, much like what happened to Vlaams Belang in Belgium, even though their situation is even worse…

Schools invite the other political parties to present their opinions but often stop us from coming, despite recent decision from the highest judicial office in Sweden that we cannot be left out.

On the lack of fairness in Swedish elections:

FP: Can there be free and fair elections in Sweden?

Ekeroth: We have good reason to think that they might be free but not so fair… The problem is that the people in the different voting stations around the country in many cases have “forgotten” to display my party’s election notes, or they are out them, or have them in a different room, or they put them in the back of the other ballot papers, thus trying to prevent people from actually being able to vote for us. This has been, and continues to be, a serious problem for us.

It is only our party that faces this kind of treatment…

On the Islamization of Sweden:

We have gotten the usual problems with crime rates skyrocketing, especially violent crimes, but in addition Swedish society has adapted to Muslims’ demands. Pork meat has been withdrawn from some schools in Sweden, the Muslim holiday Ramadan has been introduced in a school north of Stockholm, separate bath times for men and women are in effect in the southern city of Malmö due to Muslim demands.

Also in Malmö, the Social-Democratic mayor, issued a boycott against a tennis game between Sweden and Israel, to cater to his Muslim constituency — a clear indicator of an Islamized territory.

[…]

But of course, the worst part so far is the violence we see from the Muslim group; they are grossly over represented when it comes to violent crimes such as rape, assault and the like. People from the Middle East and Africa are, for instance, five times more likely to commit rape or assault than the rest of the population.

The Dutch writer Michiel Mans is an occasional contributor here at Gates of Vienna. His latest essay concerns the parlous relationship between Europe and its Muslim immigrant population.

“Till Death Do Us Part”by Michiel Mans

Some relationships work; some don’t. If they don’t, things can grow nasty. Love doesn’t always “feed the needs” till sixty-four. In forced marriages there is not even love to begin with. Postpone the divorce too long and one might kill the other, forcing the “till death do us part” vow.

Here in Europe we have many such forced marriages. Native Brits, Belgians, Danes, Dutch, French, Germans, Italians and others were not asked whether they wanted all these millions of Muslims to come and settle in their countries. It must be said however, some Muslims were actually invited. Like thousands of Spaniards and Italians, the first Moroccans* and Turks came on invitation. As “guest workers” on contracts (from about 1960). At least that is how the lock on the floodgate was opened in Holland.

In Holland most of these Moroccan and Turkish guests stayed. And we let them. What’s a few thousand immigrants anyway? Then the Muslim guests had their families come over — and their families — and many more (family) as brides and grooms, often in arranged marriages. The thousands became millions in Europe.

Neighborhoods could absorb some newcomers, particularly if their culture was somewhat similar and they were willing to fit in, adapt, adjust, if not assimilate. The newcomers from, for example, Italy and Spain did. Muslims as a group didn’t. That is the perception. At least from the outside. With among other things their silly dress codes. Because some Prophet or God wants them to dress like that. Or so they and we have been told. Something to do with lust and seduction. Apparently even girls as young as four, five years old can instill lust or beg to be jumped if not properly wrapped up.

And it doesn’t really matter whether most of them actually do try to fit in, adept and adjust, or even assimilate. Human reason is unfortunately mostly based on perception. Not on facts. “We” and “they” are all biased, prejudiced, and arrogant creatures. Perhaps even somewhat racist by nature. A proper education and decent upbringing cannot change that. Not a lot anyway. When emotions start to run high, reason is the first to run away. Between husband and wife, between families and clans, between races and nations.

Of course God doesn’t help either. Because he’s always on our side. Not their side. Unfortunately, their God, whom many of them take extremely seriously, makes them tell or yell at least five times a day that he is indeed the greatest. The one and only true God. And always right. Their book says so, too. Repeatedly. Actually, on every page. Nothing happens or gets done without their God’s consent. In ša Allah. Their God also hates non-believers. And it doesn’t take much to be one. We have just stopped fighting for our God. They still go straight to heaven, dying while doing so.- - - - - - - - -Where there is a heaven, there often is a hell as well. The road towards it is always paved with good intentions. Like: “We — our races, cultures, religions and beliefs — are all equal”. Or wishful thinking like: “We can, shall and must all live together in peace and harmony”. Alas, we never have. Or we first kicked someone else out and then we lived happily ever after. Wishes for peace and harmony — which the wishers over time changed into commands- are often immediately followed by wishes of good fortune for all. We all deserve to be rich and if you’re not it’s because some other bastard doesn’t play by the rules. In the case of our well-wishing road-paving friends, these bastards are invariably Westerners. In other words, they themselves. Or their forefathers. They had slaves you know. They stole land. Bastards.

This “Westerners did it” isn’t considered a biased, prejudiced or racist opinion by our well-wishing friends. Oddly enough, “the Muslims did it” — or even “we all did it” — is. Odd, no? Neither Westerners nor Muslims are a race. Or do these non-racist well wishers consider a black, yellow or brownish Westerner something else? Something different? But we are all equal? In good and bad. For better or worse. Till death do us part.

Or we get a divorce. We seem to have reached a point where staying together doesn’t work. We irritate the hell out of each other. We have done so for years (if not centuries). We want to make them like us and they want to make us like them. Neither of us wants to give in. Apart from those who pave the road to hell, that is. Most well-wishers are nice, educated and civilized people. Really. At least that is what they consider themselves. They will eat anything. They are very open-minded. So open-minded that their brains have fallen out.

And even the blind can see we can’t live together in peace. Yes, even the blind can see it. The blind have dogs to see for them. However, take the dog on the bus (or cab) and you might have to leave these eyes behind. Or wait for another bus. Why? Because the religious beliefs of an equal are offended by the presence of the dog. A dog is a filthy animal. Or so the Muslim bus driver tells you. Or one of these well-wishers has an open mind for such bollocks.

As in marriage, sometimes a small incident becomes the fuse to blow it apart. Usually “the bucket was already full”. And the buckets are full in Europe. We must get a divorce. Or the “till death do us part” will be bloody. For everybody. Including those who paved the road to hell.

Notes:

*

In 1965 there were 4,500 Moroccans in Holland. In 1971 their number had grown to 22,000. In 1973 the practice of guest worker recruitment stopped. Yet by 1980 there were 72,000 Moroccans in Holland. Their number grew to 168,000 in 1990 and 349,270 in 2010.

Source: Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute at the Research Institute Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (NIDI-KNAW) and the Official Dutch Statistics Office (CBS).

Anarchist anti-globalist demonstrators — looking much like their Antifa comrades in Europe, clad in black and wearing masks — went on a rampage yesterday in downtown Toronto during the G-20 meeting. They smashed windows, torched a police cruiser, and caused general mayhem, although they were unable to get anywhere near Barack Obama and all the other heads of state at the summit.

You’ll notice that the anarchists did not consider the videotaping of their antics by citizen-journalists to be free expression and thus worthy of protection. Watch them try to shut down the cameraman in this video:

According to the AP, more than five hundred people have been arrested so far, most of them home-grown Canadian anarchists. A sizeable contingent was arrested during a raid on the campus of the University of Toronto.

Ghost of a flea has a series of videos taken on Yonge Street after the demonstrators had passed through. The riot police were concentrated in the financial district protecting the G-20 meeting and the banks, leaving the demonstrators the opportunity to wreak havoc with impunity on the commercial streets.

As the cameraman notes, the targeted businesses were almost all American franchises such as Starbucks, McDonalds, American Apparel, Burger King, etc. After the worst was over, the streets filled with ordinary Torontonians who came out to rubberneck and photograph the wreckage.

With the glass all over the sidewalks in front of the business establishments, it looked like Toronto’s version of Kristallnacht.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

The news feed has been rather thin for the last few days because the Italians are on vacation. It means we’re short on Mediterranean news for the time being.

The G20 protest in Toronto has turned violent, and a man was caught not far from the event with an astonishing array of weapons in the back of his car. Meanwhile, KFC in Britain gave up its halal-only menu because it proved surprisingly unpopular with its customer base.

A United Airlines pilot was briefly detained at the international airport in Rio de Janeiro after lowering his pants during a security screening, police said Saturday.

Pilot Michael D. Slynn, 49, was asked to remove his belt and shoes as part of a routine security screening Friday afternoon. In response, Slynn laughed at security guards and lowered his pants to his ankles, said a police spokesman who was prohibited by departmental rules from giving his name.

Slynn was detained but released shortly afterward and allowed to fly back to Washington, D.C., after signing a document promising to appear before a judge the next time he is in Brazil, the spokesman said.

Calls to United Airlines in Brazil were not immediately returned. When asked for comment, Sarah Massier, a spokeswoman for the Chicago-based company, wrote in an e-mail, “We are investigating the matter.”

Two telephone numbers listed for a Michael Slynn, in California and Florida, respectively, were disconnected or could not take messages Saturday.

Federal Police Chief Rafael Andreatta was quoted by the Internet site of the Brazilian newspaper O Globo as saying the pilot “did not respect security rules and made fun of officers.”

It was not the first time an American pilot has gotten into trouble for allegedly responding inappropriately to Brazil’s airport security measures.

In 2004, American Airlines pilot Dale Robin Hersh was fined $13,000 for allegedly giving the finger as he was being photographed at Sao Paulo’s Guarulhos International Airport. The photograph was among entry requirements for U.S. citizens implemented by Brazil at the time in response to similar rules in the United States.

Police accused Hersh of showing contempt for authorities and took him to a federal courthouse. Hersh agreed to a prosecutor’s offer to pay a fine in exchange for no charges being filed against him.

In Saudi Arabia the mutaween — more properly known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — are the religious police. Their job is to keep an eye on the citizenry and enforce the strict Wahhabist version of sharia that functions as the law of the land in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. One of their more infamous deeds was to force a group of schoolgirls back inside their burning building because they were not properly veiled. Better to burn to death than to shamelessly expose their flesh!

At last weekend’s Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan, a combination of the Dearborn police and private security cops acted as the mutaween for the Arabs of Dearborn. It seems that four blasphemous Christians — Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Paul Rezkalla, and Negeen Mayel — had the effrontery to proclaim their faith on the public sidewalk outside the festival, and all four were arrested for “breaching the peace” of Dearborn.

I heard about this disgraceful incident a week ago. I’ve been waiting for the confiscated video footage to appear so that I could post a full account of what happened, but the police have not as yet returned the cameras taken from the people they arrested. The video below — which shows the moments immediately prior to the arrest — was evidently not among the confiscated materials:

It’s important to realize that these cops were enforcing the law against defamation of Islam as prescribed by sharia. Anyone who proclaims a faith other than Islam to a Muslim is guilty of slander or defamation of Islam. However — and this is important — this law applies only within Dar al-Islam, territory that is under the rule of Islam.

In other words, the Arabs of Dearborn have declared their sidewalks to be official Islamic territory, and the Dearborn police are the de facto enforcers of sharia law in that territory.

WorldNetDaily charted the course of events at the Arab Festival, beginning with an article on June 18, just prior to the arrests. A different Christian group was able to get judicial approval for its plans to hand out materials at the festival:

Court: Christian Tracts Allowed at Arab-Fest

City police had threatened arrest for handing out information

An emergency motion has been granted by a federal appeals court in order for a Christian to hand out information about his faith at the annual Arab Festival in Dearborn, Mich., this weekend without being arrested.

A three-judge panel from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals today granted the motion requested by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Pastor George Saieg, a Sudanese Christian who has been trying to get permission to distribute literature and talk about his Christianity to Muslims at the festival.

The event is Friday through Sunday in Dearborn, where an estimated 30,000 of the city’s 98,000 residents are Muslim.

According to the law center, Judge Paul Borman just a week ago had affirmed the city’s ban on handing out Christian material near the festival. It was last year when Dearborn police threatened Saieg with arrest if he handed out information on Christianity near the festival.

But the judges’ ruling was of no avail to the “Dearborn Four”; they were arrested anyway. As WND reported on June 21:

‘Allahu Akbar!’ Shouted as Christians Cuffed

Four Christians were arrested and thrown out of a public Arab festival in Michigan — and at least two people claim a crowd cheered “Allahu Akbar!” while the Christians were led away in handcuffs for doing nothing more than engaging in peaceful dialogue and videotaping the event.

Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Paul Rezkalla and 18-year-old Negeen Mayel attended the 15th annual Dearborn Arab International Festival on June 18 in Dearborn, Mich., where an estimated 30,000 of the city’s 98,000 residents are Muslim.

The American Arab Chamber of Commerce announced the event was expected to draw “over 300,000 people from across the country, Canada and the Middle East.” The festival covers 14 blocks and is free and open to the public.

Qureshi and Mayal are former Muslims who are now Christians. Mayal’s parents emigrated from Afghanistan. Wood is a former atheist. All are from a Christian group called Acts 17 Apologetics.

In the following video after the arrest, Qureshi said his group took “extra precautions” to prevent disruptions by not handing out pamphlets and to speak only to people “who first approached us”:

“This was to limit accusations of instigation and disruption,” he explained. “We knew people have a tendency to accuse us of being disruptive, of inciting and instigating. So we wanted to make sure we did absolutely nothing of the sort.”

[…]

According to his post, the video footage was confiscated by police. Versions posted online had been removed at the time of this report.

“[W]e will post footage when the police give us back our cameras,” he wrote.

At one point, we came across a festival volunteer who seemed to take issue with us simply being at the festival. We could tell he had a problem with us, and so we asked “What are we doing wrong?” He said, “Put the camera and microphone down, and I’ll tell you.” (By the way, there was more to this conversation, but when you see the footage, I think you’ll see I’m being fair in my summary.) So I obliged, handing the microphone to David and asking him to not record the man. I then approached him and said, “No camera, no mic, tell me what we’re doing wrong.” He said “Get away from me!” (or something to that effect). Again, I obliged, and walked away.

About 20 minutes later, to shouts and cheers of “Allahu Akbar!” we were all being led away from the festival in handcuffs. From the brief description we were given by the police of why we were being arrested, it sounds like the festival volunteer said we surrounded him and didn’t give him an opportunity to leave, thereby “breaching the peace.” This is as blatantly false as an accusation can get.

[…]

One witness named Steven Atkins, a resident of Toronto, Canada, said, “I never thought I would see this in America.”

“When Dr. Quereshi was arrested I heard people clapping and applauding, and some said ‘Allahu Akbar,’“ he said. “It was an intense discussion, but it was not unruly. … There was no threat of violence.”

Atkins added, “It’s becoming more restrictive here than in Canada.”

Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad, an officer who was recently appointed to serve on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, told the Detroit Free Press the four Christians were arrested for disorderly conduct.

“We did make four arrests for disorderly conduct,” Haddad said. “They did cause a stir.”

Haddad told the paper he’s not taking sides, but he said officers must keep the peace at the event that draws 300,000 people over three days.

“Everyone’s space should be respected,” he said. “It’s Father’s Day weekend…. People are here to have a good time, and it’s our job to ensure security.”

One of the nation’s top legal teams regarding civil and religious rights has stepped into a dispute stemming from last weekend’s Arab Festival in Dearborn, Mich., where police are accused of enforcing Islamic law.

“Officers arrested four Christian missionaries and illegally confiscated their video cameras which were recording the events surrounding their arrests,” said a statement today from the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich.

Officials in the police department with the city of Dearborn declined to comment to WND.

But the law center announcement said the incident has been described as “police enforcement of Shariah law.” The organization said it would represent the Christians.

“These Christian missionaries were exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, but apparently the Constitution carries little weight in Dearborn, where the Muslim population seems to dominate the political apparatus,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center.

[…]

The Arab event was June 18 in Dearborn, where an estimated 30,000 of the city’s 98,000 residents are Muslim.

On June 24, the Christians themselves, who are members of a group called “Answering Muslims”, posted their own report on what happened at the Arab Festival:

In Dearborn, we were arrested for having a peaceful dialogue with Muslims. The police claimed we were being disruptive. We invited them to view the video footage, which would prove our innocence. They refused, preferring to take us to jail when we had indisputable proof against the false charges. Police seized our cameras illegally, and have to this day refused to share the footage with us, footage that will completely exonerate us. Police Chief Ronald Haddad refuses to return our cameras, despite the fact that he knows we are innocent. He is responsible for the persecution and oppression of Christians in Dearborn.

So guess who should be appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council? You guessed it: Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad:

The council is comprised of leaders from state and local government, first responder communities, the private sector, and academia.

“It’s an honor, a privilege and a tremendous responsibility,” said Haddad, who traveled to Washington, D.C. earlier this month to meet with his fellow council members.

The group’s efforts, Haddad said, will be focused on sharing information and improving communication on the national stage.

In addition to Haddad, the group currently has more than two-dozen individuals listed on its membership roster, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, Community Engagement Officer Omar Alomari with Ohio Homeland Security, Acting Professor of Law Asli Bali of the UCLA School of Law, President and CEO Richard Cohen of Southern Poverty Law Center, Sheriff Doug Gillespie of the Las Vegas Police Department, Senior Analyst and Executive Director Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, Executive Director Dan Rosenblatt of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and Director Nadia Roumani of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute. [emphasis added]

“Our job is to identify what type of training would suit front line law enforcement, officers, and to improve their ability to work more effectively with community members to mitigate threats or actual crime,” Haddad said.

The council, he said, was formed in the wake of a growing number of attacks on American soil, including the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day in 2009 and the arrest of the Hutaree militia group charged with plotting to levy war against the U.S.

“When you look at those things, it’s clear that we can ill afford to work in a vacuum,” Haddad said. “We need to reach out to members of the community and open up the lines of communication.”

The city of Dearborn and its police department has already established several similar advisory committees to facilitate communication between different cultural and religious groups, as well as various groups and organizations throughout the city.

“We’re engaging the community in a way that’s never been done before,” Haddad said…

Well, Christians have been persecuted by Muslims for centuries, so Haddad’s not actually engaging the community in a new way. Perhaps he means that he’s engaging the American community in a new way, e.g. by taking away the Constitutional rights of Christians. But he needs to be clear about that. People might get the idea that he believes in American values.

If anyone would like to contact the Homeland Security Advisory Council, you can reach them here.

So what about the Homeland Security Advisory Council? What kind of organization is it?

Its job is to provide advice and recommendations to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on matters related to homeland security. In other words, it sounds like one of those benign-but-meaningless federal adjunct groups that provide patronage jobs to political cronies and suck up our tax dollars. However, a cursory glance at its personnel immediately reveals the tentacles of ISNA, and thus the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of the first things you’ll notice is a prominent connection with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left NGO with a notorious fondness for people affiliated with Islamic terrorism. To give you an idea of the SPLC’s reliability, it is a preferred source of information for Charles Johnson when he focuses his attention on “right-wing extremists” and “racists”.

Many thanks to Dymphna for doing the research into the roster of names from the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Let’s take a closer look at some of the worthies who have been deputized by Ms. Napolitano to make sure that Americans sleep safely in their beds at night:

Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press, and Duped its Donors

By Jerry KammerMarch 2010

Introduction

This report examines the efforts by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to smear the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and, by extension, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA.

With no serious analysis, the SPLC in late 2007 unilaterally labeled FAIR a “hate group.” That poisonous designation became the centerpiece of a “Stop the Hate” campaign launched by the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), also known as La Raza, to call on Congress and the media to exclude FAIR from the national debate on immigration.

The campaign gathered strength as newspapers across the country reported that FAIR had been “designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.” While the news stories generally included FAIR’s denial of the charge, thereby providing a semblance of balance, the designation’s taint lingered. The SPLC, presenting itself as a non-partisan, public-interest watchdog, never acknowledged — and no reporter ever disclosed — that the center was an active ally of the NCLR in the campaign.

The evidence presented here demonstrates that the SPLC became a propaganda arm of the NCLR. The SPLC’s decision to smear FAIR was the work of a kangaroo court, one convened to reach a pre-determined verdict by inventing or distorting evidence. The “Stop the Hate” campaign would more accurately be labeled as a campaign to “Stop the Debate.”

As this report notes, FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA have raised questions about the social, economic, and fiscal costs of the “comprehensive immigration reform” sought by La Raza and such allies as the National Immigration Forum and America’s Voice. Rather than engage in a debate, La Raza and its allies have waged a campaign to have the other side shunned by the press, civil society, and elected officials. It is an effort to destroy the reputations of its targets. It also seeks to intimidate and coerce others into silence. It undermines basic principles of civil society and democratic discussion.

We examine the SPLC’s work in the campaign against the background of the law center’s history, acknowledging that the SPLC has done admirable work in attacking the Ku Klux Klan and in representing immigrant workers who have been exploited by employers.

But we also review two decades of work by investigative reporters that has exposed SPLC hate-mongering and deception of the donors on whom it depends. Indeed, the SPLC’s hometown paper, the Montgomery Advertiser, was a Pulitzer Prize finalist for its nine-day exposé of the SPLC and its founder, Morris Dees, in 1994. The current attack on FAIR is consistent with the duplicity documented by that series and by other journalists who have investigated the SPLC.

Finally, we examine the SPLC attack on John Tanton, the Michigan environmental activist who founded FAIR in 1979. We document repeated distortion and exaggeration and show that many of Tanton’s concerns about immigration, though cited by the SPLC as proof of bigotry and intolerance, also have been raised by respected scholars and journalists.

But we also discuss how Tanton has undermined the movement by adhering to a big-tent philosophy that embraces some figures who do not play a constructive role in the immigration debate.

In a civil society, proven racists, bigots, and hate mongers deserve rejection. This report shows that the SPLC, while claiming to hold high the banner of tolerance, failed to observe basic standards of responsible judgment, honest reporting, and simple human decency. It preferred to engage in character assassination.

The SPLC is entitled to its opinion. But it cannot pose as a non-partisan watchdog when it fabricates and distorts evidence to delegitimize one side of the immigration debate while it is actually working as an ally of the opposing side. Claiming to act in the name of tolerance, the SPLC has tried to destroy it.

Tom Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at the liberal Center for International Policy in Washington, DC, noted that the SPLC’s “hate group” designation of FAIR “provided highly explosive ammunition for the character assassination campaign.”

Barry, who supports “comprehensive” reform, offered this assessment of the “Stop the Hate” campaign: “Trying to stick a label of ‘extremist’ on institutes that have massive memberships, good relations with the media, and good standing on the Hill is a measure of how desperate and isolated the pro-immigration forces that have embraced this strategy really are.”

I. Anatomy of a Smear

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s December 2007 announcement that it had decided to designate the Federation for American Immigration Reform as a “hate group”1 was a dramatic move by the Alabama-based organization, which claims to be “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry.”2

The designation placed FAIR, one of the most prominent organizations that favor reduced immigration and oppose a sweeping legalization of illegal immigrants, on an SPLC list occupied by notoriously bigoted groups of racist skinheads, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan.

What prompted the move? After all, the SPLC had been writing critically about FAIR for years without taking the extreme measure of branding it as a hate group.

Surely, the SPLC, which presents itself as an advocate of tolerance and which touts its dream of “peace, respect, and understanding,”3 would not take such a step without damning new evidence.

But that is what it did.

The SPLC’s move was not an act of conscience. Nor was it the bark of a public-interest watchdog. It was a publicity stunt in the service of the National Council of La Raza, which was about to launch a campaign intended to drive FAIR from the arena of public debate on national immigration policy.

The law center, while claiming to be non-partisan, served as a propaganda arm of La Raza’s effort to shape immigration policy. The NCLR has been grateful for the assistance. The website of its “Stop the Hate” campaign lists the SPLC as one of its six allied organizations.4

The campaign’s strategy was to portray FAIR as an extremist organization, so tainted by hatred and racism that it should be excluded from the public discussion of immigration. La Raza president and CEO Janet Murguia personally led the attack. Appearing on the Lou Dobbs show in early 2008, she cited the SPLC’s designation and declared, “FAIR is a known, documented hate group.”5

Another NCLR ally in the campaign was a new organization called America’s Voice, whose work to influence public opinion on immigration policy is being funded by a $6 million grant from the Carnegie Corporation, a philanthropic foundation. America’s Voice is directed by Frank Sharry, who for 17 years was executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which bills itself as “the nation’s premier immigrant rights organization.”6 Its board of directors includes representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the American Nursery & Landscape Association.

As reported in the Carnegie Corporation’s magazine, America’s Voice was launched as a “communications effort designed to more directly challenge those who oppose immigration reform.”7 The organization sponsored full-page ads that touted the SPLC’s “hate group” declaration in Politico and Roll Call, Capitol Hill newspapers that are widely read by congressional staff and other members of the Washington political establishment.8

“The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is Designated a HATE GROUP by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” said the ad, using red capital letters to highlight “FAIR” and “HATE GROUP.” It added, “Extremist groups, like FAIR, shouldn’t write immigration policy.”9

Highlighting the gravity of the charge, and the disgrace it intended to inflict, the America’s Voice website noted: “Other SPLC ‘hate groups’ include: the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Aryan Nations.”10 It urged supporters: “Tell Congress, Don’t Meet with FAIR!”

Tom Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at the liberal Center for International Policy, questioned not only the wisdom of the campaign, but also its integrity.

“Is seeking to undermine the influence of these groups in the media and on Capitol Hill by throwing (them) in the same lot as the Ku Klux Klan and National Socialist Aryan Order [something that can] really be considered an effective and principled political strategy?” he asked in his Border Lines blog in late 2008. “Will smearing the restrictionist policy institutes and their leaders in campaigns of character assassination bolster the possibilities of passing a liberal immigration reform bill?”11

It would also be reasonable to ask how such a campaign fits the mission of the Carnegie Corporation, whose $6 million grant to America’s Voice helped finance the inflammatory ads. Its mission statement says its work “honors Andrew Carnegie’s passion for … the health of our democracy.”12

La Raza is also lavishly funded, primarily by foundations and corporate donors. Its annual report for 2008 listed 38 donors who had contributed at least $200,000 that year. They included the Bank of America, Citi, ConAgra Foods, Freddie Mac, General Motors, and Wal-Mart, as well as the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Its grants for 2008 totaled $28.3 million, including $5.1 million from the federal government.13

Crossing the Rubicon, SPLC Style

An organization that claims to offer expertise in the business of identifying hate groups, as the SPLC does, might be expected to work with precise, rigorous criteria. The SPLC has no such standards.

Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that “we do not have a formal written criteria.” When a radio host asked her in late 2007 how an organization qualifies for the label, Beirich offered this explanation. “You qualify as a hate group if you treat an entire group of people for their internal characteristics, or their inherent characteristics, as less, or you demean them in some way.”14

A definition this flexible and imprecise could summon the SPLC Hate Patrol to the door of nearly any group of football fans, political activists, or Apple computer enthusiasts. It is an invitation to just the sort of mischief that gives the SPLC’s designation of FAIR the odor of a made-to-order, politically expedient smear. It was delivered in December 2007, the month before La Raza launched its “Stop the Hate” campaign. The SPLC showed all the precision and care of gang members spraying obscenities on a warehouse wall.15

In his roll-out of the “hate group” designation, the SPLC’s Mark Potok acknowledged that his bill of particulars against FAIR consisted almost entirely of information that had been known for years. So to make the timing of the announcement seem plausible, Potok needed something new and powerful. Indeed, he claimed to have found proof that FAIR had crossed “the Rubicon of hate” in an act of self-revelation so stark and shameless as to require the SPLC to take action.16

Their Rubicon-crossing evidence was a sham.

Potok pointed to a FAIR meeting with Belgian elected officials who belonged to a right-wing political party whose predecessor had been banned by a Belgian court. This charge, elaborated in Hatewatch blog posts about an obscure and insignificant meeting, would be laughed out of any credible forum of public opinion. But for the SPLC’s kangaroo court — where Potok and Beirich were prosecutors, judge, and jury — it was good enough.

Potok hyped his case by erroneously reporting that FAIR “officials” had met with the Belgians. Beirich erroneously added that “a senior FAIR official sought advice” from the Belgians.17

In fact, the FAIR official who met the Belgians was Jack Martin, a retired State Department diplomat who regularly meets with the Spanish-language press because of his fluency in Spanish. Martin said he met with the Belgians because they had asked for a briefing on how FAIR sought to influence U.S. policy on illegal immigration.

“I’ve met with visitors from dozens of foreign countries who are traveling here,” said Martin. “The fact that I met with them does not mean that I agree with their politics. I’ve met with officials from Communist China, and that doesn’t mean I’m a communist.”18 Martin calls the SPLC “members of the flaky left who have a tendency to engage in McCarthyite techniques” of guilt by association.

Here is how Stephen Pollard, a respected British journalist writing in The Times of London, described the Belgian party that sent a delegation to Washington:

The banned party is VlaamsBlok (VB). The Court of Appeal in Ghent — notorious for its left-liberal bias — deemed it to be an “undemocratic and racist” organization because of its policy that immigrants should be given only two choices: “to assimilate or to return home.”

Maybe such a policy is indeed racist; maybe it isn’t. … But in a democracy, surely, that is a decision which voters should make, not judges.

But the VB’s racism was merely an excuse. The real reason why the Belgian authorities have been bent on banning the VB for years has nothing to do with racism and the rights of immigrants. It is that the party advocates secession from Belgium and the establishment of a Republic of Flanders. Worse still, as Belgium’s only conservative party it upsets the country’s cosy political applecart. The Belgian Establishment has responded not by defeating it in argument but by banning it.19

Lacking the authority to banish FAIR, the SPLC set out to delegitimize it, setting the stage for allies who would call on the press and elected officials to banish FAIR from the national immigration debate. As the SPLC’s Mark Potok rolled out the “hate group” designation, he said the law center had “decided to take another look at FAIR” after the meeting with the Belgians. Said Potok, “When our work was done, it was obvious that FAIR qualified as a hate group.”20

The claim that an inconsequential meeting would jolt the SPLC into a reevaluation of an organization it had been denigrating for years is implausible. But for La Raza’s “Stop the Hate” campaign, the timing was perfect. The campaign was launched the following month. Beirich said in an email that the “hate group” announcement “was our decision alone and had nothing to do with NCLR.” She did not respond when asked whether the SPLC knew at the time of the announcement that planning for the campaign was in an advanced stage. The SPLC’s work was a central part of that campaign.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Acting Professor of Law Asli Bali of the UCLA School of Law

Last year, when she was an associate research scholar at Yale Law, this was the blurb for her at a UCLA event:

Asli U. Bali is an Associate Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School. She has lectured on Comparative Political Systems of the Middle East at Princeton University and served as an Associate at the firm Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York and Paris. She engaged in extensive pro bono work relating to immigration, civil liberties, and international human rights. Bâli’s research interests focus on issues of non-proliferation, human rights, terrorism and the Middle East. Recent work includes Interventionism and its Discontents in the Middle East (co-authored working paper with Aziz Rana); From Subjects to Citizens? The Shifting Paradigm of Electoral Authoritarianism in the Middle East (forthcoming in the Journal of Middle East Law and Governance). Ms. Bali received a B.A. summa cum laude from Williams College, a M.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, and her J.D. from Yale Law School. J.D., Yale, 1999. Her Ph.D from Princeton University will be conferred later this year.

FULL STORY: A conference at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) on April 16, 2010, offered “Critical Perspectives on the Criminalization of Islamic Philanthropy in the War on Terror.” Co-sponsored by the UCLA International Institute, the Critical Race Studies Program, and the UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law — and including speakers from UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES) — the conference proffered the usual apologist fare.

It was also an echo chamber. Of the approximately 30 people in attendance, 20 of them were academics. Several students showed up, in addition to the usual assortment of aging Leftist revolutionaries.

The thrust of the conference was simple: The war on terror has led to a crackdown on Muslim charities, which has had a chilling effect on Muslims by rendering them unable to engage in Zakat (charity), one of the five pillars of Islam.

Unmentioned throughout this eight-hour infomercial was that the majority of the charities that have been investigated for financially aiding terrorism were found guilty and that decent Muslims are capable of giving to charities that do not foment bombings and beheadings.

Asli Bali, Acting Professor of Law at UCLA, organized the conference and acted as one of the principal moderators. She responded to challenging questions from the audience by stating: “We will take three questions from presenters; others will have to wait.”

Discover the Networks has a summary of this “Committee”, which is anti-Israel:

ADC is notable not only for its programs and campaigns, but also for its open expressions of support for some controversial figures. For instance, in 1987 the Committee honored filmmaker Michael Moore for his “courageous efforts in journalism.” A decade and a half later, when University of South Florida professor Sami-Al Arian was indicted on terrorism-related charges, ADC’s Hussein Ibish depicted FBI investigations of Al-Arian “a political witch hunt, a vendetta, and a kind of very, very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism.”

Witness Omar Alomari is the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Department of Homeland Security multicultural relations officer. Since taking the job in 2006, he wrote a 40-page Culture Guide related to Arabic and Islamic Culture. In this document, Alomari defined jihad as the benign pursuit of personal betterment. It may be applied to physical conflict for Muslims, but only in the arena of Muslims defending themselves when attacked or when attempting to overthrow oppression and occupation.

Jihad as a holy war is a European invention, spread in the West, he wrote.

Alomari also authored a two-page brochure called “Agents of Radicalization” for the Ohio Department of Homeland Security. In it, he lists several grievances driving terrorism in the Muslim world, including Israel’s occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Muslim lands and support for repressive regimes. Alomari goes on to explain that such terrorism also stems from the expected societal reaction of the once proud and thriving Arab/Muslim culture, now in decline and conflict because of the stronger and aggressive West.

[…]

The material Alomari’s agency is putting out is “classic Islamist propaganda” which suggests that “these thugs who kill people in restaurants and shopping malls will stop if we solve the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Jasser said. “In fact, they’ll find another grievance in a year or two.”

Alomari acknowledges that some Muslim communities do, in fact, provide support for the radical jihadists, who he labels “the opposition.” He also describes Islam as a “politicized religion” in terms of terrorism and how “it’s easier for extremists in Islam to convince youngsters to join in their extremist organizations.”

But the brochure ends with a list of seven Muslim organizations the Ohio agency works with. All the groups have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or have their own history of extremist rhetoric.

The Jawa Report discovered that Mr. Alomari liked to sleep with his students, and was fired for doing so:

The wheels of justice grind slowly, as the saying goes. But they (along with the establishment media) are finally catching up with the Jawa Report.

Exhibit A is a front page article in the Columbus Dispatch on Saturday concerning a story we broke here back in April concerning the various follies within Ohio Homeland Security; specifically, our reports about their multicultural affairs/community engagement director Omar Alomari being previously fired from a state college for sleeping with one of his students — whom he later sued (unsuccessfully) for defamation after she reported him to the school; and another top official, Olen Martin, who padded his resume with not one, but two fake college degrees.

State official under scrutiny for job history

An Ohio Homeland Security official is being investigated for failing to disclose his former employment at Columbus State Community College, where he was fired after an improper consensual sexual affair with one of his students.

Omar Alomari, the department’s community engagement director, did not list his tenure at Columbus State from 1990 to 1996 when he applied to work for the state and submitted background-check materials in late 2006.

Department of Public Safety officials began an administrative investigation into the accuracy of Alomari’s paperwork last month after a terrorism-related website began digging into his background.

Alomari, 59, a native of Jordan, was a full-time humanities instructor at Columbus State. He disputed his dismissal, filing a national-origin discrimination complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. He also sued the woman with whom he had an affair, accusing her of slander and seeking damages.

The civil-rights commission found no probable cause of discrimination and dismissed Alomari’s complaint. The lawsuit against his former student also was dismissed.

Few American Islamists receive the kind of glowing media coverage given to Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, who is sometimes described as the “most influential person” shaping the Obama Administration’s Middle East message.

Mogahed, who claims to have played an important role in the drafting of President Obama’s historic Cairo speech to the Muslim world, was appointed to serve on the President’s Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council released its final recommendations last month.

When European Islamist Tariq Ramadan kicked off his U.S. tour last week at Cooper Union in New York City, Mogahed and two journalists joined him for a panel discussion. Her remarks emphasized polling data showing that Muslim Americans are more affluent and socially content than their European counterparts.

Muslim Americans are no more likely to support political violence than the rest of the nation, Mogahed said. The minority of Muslim Americans who do support attacks on civilians base this position on politics, not religion.

It’s a message that Mogahed attempts to drive home at every opportunity.

She routinely is depicted as a scholarly analyst monitoring public opinion on subjects like anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States or global Muslim attitudes toward America. On other occasions, she is treated as a pioneering Muslim celebrity or portrayed as a victim of anti-Muslim “smears.”

But the reality is much more complicated. Mogahed is not some apolitical social scientist chronicling political trends in the manner of George Gallup, founder of the parent organization for her polling center. While Gallup strived to maintain his objectivity, Mogahed has followed a very different course. As we will explain in more detail below, she works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council’s activities.

Mogahed is a protégé of John Esposito, executive director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a longstanding apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. The pair have worked together at the Gallup Center, and co-authored the book Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think in 2007, which was subsequently turned into a film. Read the State Department website’s coverage of the film premiere here.

Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a September 2008 appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., she was asked about links between the two organizations and Islamic radicals. Mogahed replied that it would be unfair to have those groups “disenfranchised” because of “misinformation.” Without offering evidence, she claimed “there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it’s kind of a witch hunt.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Director Nadia Roumani of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute.

Nadia Roumani is the Director of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute, a faith-based leadership training and civic engagement program that strengthens young leaders in the Muslim community who are working towards the full participation of Muslims in American public life. AMCLI is housed at the USC Center for Religion and Civic Culture, and works in partnership with Georgetown’s Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim- Christian Understanding.

In addition to her work with AMCLI, Nadia is the consultant program officer for the Doris Duke Foundation for Islamic Art’s Building Bridges Program, and the Principal of Roumani Consulting LLC. Nadia consults regularly for several international organizations, foundations, and nonprofit organizations. Among others, she has consulted for the World Bank, UNDP, UN Alliance of Civilizations, the Brookings Institution, the Four Freedoms Fund, the Carnegie Corporation, the Rothschild Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

Nadia was the interim director for the Women Leaders Intercultural Forum, and a Senior Associate at the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, where she co-founded the Global Policy Innovations Program. Between 2000 and 2004, Nadia was the Assistant Director of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, a project directed by Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, and a junior associate in Stiglitz’s office at the World Bank from 1999-2000.

Nadia is the President of the Board of Directors of the Muslim Public Service Network; a Member of the Pacific Council on International Policy; and a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Nadia received her master’s degree from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and her bachelor’s degree in economics and international relations from Stanford University.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It’s difficult for most Americans to realize how thoroughly the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) has penetrated the organs of federal, state, and local government. The Pentagon and the national security establishment regularly employ Muslim “advisors” whose connections with the Muslim Brotherhood are easily discovered.

In November 2008 the directors of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted on one hundred and eight charges of terrorism financing. One of the HLF documents made public during the trial had this to say about the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in America:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. […] It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is […]

The HLF document also named a list of its affiliates in North America, which include:

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)

The Muslim Student Association (MSA)

The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) (which holds the title to a large number of mosques, financed by Saudi Arabia)

The Fiqh Council of North America (in 1991 the ISNA Fiqh Committee; under its new name it is still a subordinate element of ISNA)

CAIR

The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)

The International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT)

These are the very same organizations that supply advisors and sensitivity trainers and liaison officials to work closely with the federal government — including the Department of Homeland Security — at all levels.

These groups were officially named by the federal government as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, yet the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon and the FBI hire them as helpers and advisors in the “War on Terror”. These are the people our own government has chosen to provide information to our elected and appointed leaders and help them form their core ideas about the “Religion of Peace”.

“Baron,” you might well ask, “how could we get any more screwed than this?”

Friday, June 25, 2010

House Democrats — alarmed by a recent Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Americans’ free speech rights under the First Amendment — have passed a bill that will restrict campaign activities by various groups, but exempts — surprise! — labor unions from its provisions.

In other news, Australia’s new prime minister, Julia Gillard, reassures President Obama that she will continue her predecessor’s policy and support US military operations in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has decided to monitor Google and Yahoo so that it can clamp down on any “blasphemy”.

The article below by the Austrian scholar Harald Fiegl was posted on May 15 at EuropeNews. Many thanks to JLH for translating it from the original German.

The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europeby Dr. Harald Fiegl

A drastic change for the worse. What do Islam and full EU membership for Turkey mean for the European model of life?

The EU regards itself as a community of values, a region of security, freedom, prosperity and law and as a unique peace project. The Christian-Western value base is not considered a “settled norm,” but the moral sensibility and cultural inheritance are a condensation of Christianity and Enlightenment. As such, it is in stark contrast to Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles with their group identity.

Seen from the outside, despite its economic difficulties, the EU is still an economic partner and an immigration destination. It is also in demand as a source for financing developmental aid projects. A place where human rights receive more recognition than in other parts of the world. It is not, however, a political power, a “global player.” Furthermore, it lacks a common domestic and foreign security policy, and so a common demeanor.

The new European foreign service (EAD) with its 8,000 (?) employees and 130 delegations will only be capable of a united front when the common external and security policy (GASP) materializes.

Economic significance with political weakness makes the EU an object of desire for other political powers. At the head of the line stands the Islamization of Europe in combination with Turkey’s intent to dominate Europe — specifically the EU. This country is preparing the way for itself. There is no “give-and-take” exchange. Turkey wants a Turkish Europe!

The EU is in the same position as Byzantium before its conquest by the Turks. Then as now, an opponent fighting with all means at its disposal was facing a disunited, absolutely self destructive entity.* The

Islamization of the entire world is being pursued by Muslims with determination at all levels. As an Islamic country, Turkey strengthens this tendency by adding its own expansive nationalism.

How Can These Claims Be Perceived?

By the structure of the EU

By the structure of Turkey and the worldwide spread of Islam

By the claims of hegemony in the community of nations

The Structure of the EU

At every opportunity, there is talk of commonalities and the unification, indeed re-unification of Europe and with that, the absolutely imperative expansion of the EU to a minimum of 40 members. In fact, however, these commonalities are absent and so is the prerequisite for a successful expansion. In the absence of common successes, it appears that the EU is seeking its salvation in expansion, even if the expansion finds little agreement in the European population. that is brought on by the expansion. Add to that the fact that the will of the majority of the European population has no voice in the decisions of the EU organs of governance. Is the EU just a cornucopia for skilled lobbyists and a high level employment agency?

This is especially true of the decision to accept Turkey as a full member.

In other words, the oft-mentioned “European Spirit” is moribund. But only something like it can create a self-conscious Europe which will play a decisive role in the world.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the EU did not make lasting use of the possibilities for new and independent connections with Russia, and thus supported the return of the Russian mindset to its own geopolitical claims. Russia sees expansion of the EU as part of the US encirclement policy, of which Ukraine and Georgia are especially blatant examples.

The independent policy of French president Sarkozy is a vivid example of national interests. Sarkozy is thinking French and not European, when he speaks of the Mediterranean Union and when he promotes French military alliances or treaties over nuclear cooperation with countries of the Mediterranean region.

The new members from Eastern Europe see their foreign policy support in the USA and align their foreign policy with US wishes.

Great Britain sails in the wake of the USA.

Expansion — together with globalization — has brought heightened pressure on the majority of the European population to produce, often combined with lower income to the point of financial starvation. Jobs are lost, foreign capital is decisive in European industry (China, Libya and other Arabic countries). For a large part of the European population, the EU now offers a very modest living standard.

The “Lisbon Goal” is a true declaration of bankruptcy. The EU was supposed to be the most innovative and economically significant area of the world. Now that the impossibility of this plan is obvious, the goal is being postponed by 10 years and summarily re-named Strategy 2020.

Though the EU still comes up trumps through comparatively significant economic successes in international tests of strength, disillusion has set in this area too, through accumulation of debt across the entire EU, especially in the PIGS — Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Dramatically rising unemployment — caused not least by outsourcing — intensifies this disenchantment.

The Special Case of Turkey

Between US-NATO wishes and a split of interests in member states, Turkey was granted membership in the Council of Europe in 1999 in a confidential paper which was not available to the public. In December 2004, 407 representatives in the EU parliament voted for negotiations with no further delay. Only 262 voted against. On October 3, 2005, negotiations began with the goal of full membership. (This counterintuitive position has been held to this day with no regard for public opinion. The granting of asylum to Turkish citizens is not seen as a contradictory indicator.)

Despite a lack of progress in meeting entry requirements, Turkey continues to receive signals of a foreseeable time for entry.

In the beginning of 2010, the Turk, Mevlüt Cavusoglu was elected chair of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of European.

Istanbul was chosen as the cultural capital of Europe for 2010. The festival city, Salzburg, has a sponsor from Turkey.

In its judgment of Turkey, the EU for instance, disregards the fact:- - - - - - - - -

That Turkey has great deficits in human rights and therefore does not fulfill the basic requirements for acceptance. (In contrast to these criteria, Turkey was granted “sufficient” fulfillment of basic requirements.)

That special role of the army and religious authority, which is anchored in the constitution of the (national-religious) unity government is EU adverse and so Turkey is not and cannot become a democracy in the Western sense.

That the public life of Turkey is determined by Islam, in other words, by ideological basics which are the exact opposite of the Western model of life.

That a full membership for Turkey means an entry with fulfilling the requirements and, in consideration of the size and otherness of this land, plainly means the final abandonment of the feeling of togetherness and the end of the work of European integration.

That the entry of Turkey brings with it an enormous financial burden for the EU and, aided by this financing, all the Turkish EU contradictions, including military ambitions, are bolstered.

That the EU, in the absence of any foreign policy of its own, would stumble in the wake of Turkish interests into Turkey’s conflicts with its neighbors.

The foreign policy of the EU is a reflection of national interests and accordingly not in a position to counteract US hegemonic moves. It must eventually come to the realization that, despite all criticism of the USA. it is the only “player” in the Western world.

European Navel-Gazing Is No World Policy

Although EU deficits become ever more visible, and negative polls and warning voices of important personalities are not lacking, all EU governmental organs are celebrating the accomplishments of the work of integration with events and brochures.

The message of all these “events” is clothed in catchphrases and tranquilizer words. Take for example the following vocabulary of deception and clouding of the mind:

Abrahamic religions: the patriarch Abraham connects all monotheistic religions. (Why are the obvious differences in the way the religions are lived and practiced not addressed? A common ancestral father does not help us live together. Common rules of play will do that.)

Islam is a peace-loving religion; you must distinguish between Islam and Islamism; there is no unified Islam; the head scarf is an ordinary article of clothing; there are prejudices against Islam, even Islamophobia.

Turkey is a functioning democracy; Turkey is a secular state; Erdogan and his party are “moderately Islamist.” This is per se a contradiction in terms.

Negotiations open to results; in a plebiscite the people will have the last word. (President Fischer rightly noted that a plebiscite requires a law which can only be determined after completion of negotiations and ratification by parliament. Thus, the promise of a plebiscite proves to be a placebo, since no political force to speak of can nor will come through for such an illogical procedure ex post facto.)

During the last Austrian presidency, there was even the slogan: “The EU ought to be fun”!

Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, the EU is moving rapidly toward its self-immolation. Criticism is declared to be prejudice and the concept of prejudice is deformed to be an advantage.

It does not escape the notice of the critically thinking citizen that all these statements from the media, the authorities and from the EU describe a fairy tale world, from which there will someday be a rude awakening.

The Islamization of Our Lives

The Islamization of Europe (and the whole world) is not only the result of Muslim immigration since WW II, but has been a declared goal of Islam since the time of Mohammed. Right from the beginning, war in Islam has been a part of spreading the faith, and is therefore “just.”

The Crusades were all concerned with the re-taking of Palestine and other Christian areas from the Muslims and were in no way imperialistic projects. They were reactions to Muslim attacks. Without the Crusades, Europe would have been subjugated by Islam centuries ago.

The de-hellenization of Asia Minor began with the appearance of the Turks (Seljuks) in the Byzantine Empire (1071). The dream of Ottoman (Turkish) world empire led to the conquest of Constantinople and the Balkans came to a close over about three centuries with the sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and the succeeding “Turkish wars.”

This dream of a Turkish world empire has become reality again at this time through acceptance into the EU — without fulfilling a single condition.

The technological and consequent military superiority of Christian countries beginning in the 16th century ultimately led a counterweight to the Muslim military

Finally, the Islamic world fell behind and was even occupied by Christian countries. This enabled the Christian countries to function as protective powers for Christian minorities living in Muslim countries.

Weakened by two world wars, Europe lost its leadership role in the world. Today, non-European countries determine what happens.

Consequently, European values and culture exist merely as one variant in a worldwide offering. European culture and values are already judged negatively in many places. There is no longer any question of being a role model.

A particular milestone in this development is the first oil crisis of the 1970s. Europe’s dependence on oil led to the Europe-Arabic Dialogue (Eurabia). This is an exchange of oil for good will toward Arabic-Islamic interests and/or values. That gave rise to “the Islam prohibition.”

The fact is that Muslim countries treat Western countries with unaccustomed disrespect, of which the conflict of Switzerland with Libya is a clear example. The indifference of Somali authorities to the piracy of mercantile shipping and the attitude of Iran in the question of nuclear armament are two further examples.

Completely unperturbed by Western criticism, Iran supports Hizbullah with modern weapons. Without any objection, the West learns of the Islamization of Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and other regions by means of Saudi Arabian funds.

The January 2010 EU parliament resolution concerning incidents against Christians in Egypt and Malaysia as well as the proposed resolution of the Austrian parliament in July, 2008 on the worldwide discrimination, repression and persecution of Christians underline the precarious situation of Christians (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries. There were no repercussions. We are contemporary witnesses to the greatest persecution of Christians of all times. Persecution of Christians is not some reminiscence from the age of Rome.

The Islam Prohibition can be traced at the international as well as the national level. It consists of a ban on putting critical questions to Islam. In the dialogue, each and every discussion is ended by the discussion-stopping arguments “general suspicion” and “racism.” The order of the day is twisting the facts by Muslim authorities and compliant Western “helpers.”

An especially striking example is the portrayal of Islam as the “religion of peace,” even though Islam was conceived as an immutably battle-ready ideology. (Indeed, it should be noted that peace in Islamic terms means the state of the world after its total Islamization. To that extent, the designation “religion of peace” is no contradiction even if Islam — legitimately by its own standards — employs violence. The non-Muslim has the choice of conversion, emigration, or death.)

The UN human rights declaration is commemorated every year on Human Rights Day, the 10th of December. Thus, the allegedly universal validity of this socio-political accomplishment is recalled. Not commemorated is the fact that, for Muslims, the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam applies — sharia, Islamic law.

The “Western” idea is that human rights coincide with the concept of individual freedom. That includes religious freedom, understood as the freedom of the individual to choose his religious perspective, or to reject it.

The Islamic idea is that religious freedom is the unrestricted right of Islam to expand as a collective (umma) and displace all other religions and lifestyles. Islam is an alliance of religion and politics!

In this sense, the following points should be seen as closely connected and as steps to the Islamization of Europe (the world).

Since the 1970s — approximately contemporary with the first oil crisis — some Islamic states have been attempting to submit human rights to moral relativism by referencing cultural and religious traditions.

In 1990, Pakistan proposed a ban on defamation of Islam to the UN Human rights Council. The proposal was expanded to “religions” and also accepted as well by the UN General Assembly.

As a consequence, the “Viennese World Conference on Human Rights in 1963” struck a compromise. Since that time, “various historic, cultural and religious conditions are recognized.”

In the human rights year 1998, at the proposal of Iran, the UN General Assembly declared 2001 the “UN year of dialogue between civilizations” and thereby introduced the process of recognizing multiplicity as enrichment in a globalized world (creative diversity). Austria was host of one of the meetings in 2001.

On December 10, 2007, the speaker of the Organization of the Islamic Conference declared in the UN human rights council that the Cairo Human Rights Declaration of 1990 supplements the UN human rights declaration of 1948 since it is concerned with the cultural and religious features of Muslim countries. (Thereby, Islamic law was de facto recognized, even though it contradicts Western ideas of rights.)

The speaker of the OIC declared simultaneously that discussions of sharia in the framework of the UN human rights council are an insult to Islam and therefore impermissible.

Following up on this suggestion, the UN human rights council decided in June, 2008, that religious discussions could be led only by academics.

Therefore, recognition of special features, respect and tolerance is the basis for relations between civilizations. That is the opposite of integration.

The EU agency for basic rights tracks racism and xenophobia. Combating Islamophobia is a primary concern. Christophobia is not mentioned, although the repression and persecution of Christians have grown to the point where they are impossible to miss.

In 2005, Europeans made Islamophobia equal to anti-Semitism and thus made it a crime.

In the Council of Europe resolution 1605 of April 15, 2008, a distinction is made between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, whereby discussion of Islam and its ideology of war becomes taboo.

The president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, the Turk Mevlut Cavusoglu, said in his inaugural address in January 2010 that intercultural and inter-religious dialogue must be strengthened. All kinds of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and all other kinds of similar phobias which lead to discrimination and intolerance must be stamped out. Of hostility to Christians, which we experience daily, there was not a word.

This stress on Islamophobia is especially questionable since there is no legal definition and the following standards presumably invoke the Islam Prohibition:

The Council of Europe’s Framework Resolution 2008/913/JI of November 28, 2008 on legally enforced combating of particular forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia provides, in article 1 that the following intentional acts be made punishable by law (official crime)

“public incitement to violence or hate against a person or group of persons or member of that group defined according to race, skin color, religion, ancestry, national or ethnic origin”

As a direct result of the Islam Prohibition, we can explain why, at the demand of the Muslims, or in eager anticipation of obeying them, the majority society is considerate of alien lifestyles and ideas and thus fully accepts segregation. (The practice of sharia in British jurisprudence can be seen as abandonment of self, a submission to Islam):

No pork or alcohol

Gender separation in school and in public. Knowledge of psychoanalysis, e.g., of Sigmund Freud is not considered.

Women may only appear in public in the company of their husbands or only with a head covering.

Crosses removed from schools and hotel rooms.

Refusal to salute the flag in the army and extensive special treatment of Muslim recruits.

Consideration for the effects of the month of fasting.

Consideration for the Islamic prohibition against interest (Islamic banking). Banking may not charge interest nor deal in businesses that are repugnant to Islam (alcohol, pork, gambling, etc.) All these are signs of a progressive Islamization of all aspects of life. In truth, a systematic and unconditional discrimination against all things not Muslim!

Almost exclusively, the non-Muslim’s answer to this threatening situation is dialogue. Since Vatican II, even the Vatican believes in dialogue.

In countless interrreligious/intercultural dialogues, Christianity and the West are equated and this prevents the interpretive power of our laws from being placed beyond all doubt. Anyone who feels connected to neither Christianity nor Islam (syncretists, agnostics, atheists) justifiably asks: “Who is representing me in all the interreligious dialogues and why is my philosophy of life and the separation of religion and state of less value than religious belief, especially Islamic?”

This applies, for instance, to the president. He describes himself as an agnostic. Also never heard from are those who are in contact with Muslims in the course of their everyday lives and must experience the difficulties of integration, in the police, emergency services, hospitals and schools.

In many places, Islamic ideas are fully accommodated, from Muslim work clothes in the municipality of Vienna to the complete prohibition on discussing Muslim moral concepts. Neither the ORF, the theater nor the churches ask critical questions. They are content with “playful” encounters like hiking or soccer.

The exchange of thoughts is without intellectual depth and corresponds to a wine-tasting or the exchange of recipes. Some representatives of the church even see Islam as an ally against secularization.

With respect to the proclamation “demand and encouragement,” the measures taken by the administration to further integration are content with the encouragement. By this means, the parallel society is anchored still more firmly. Even the requirement to learn German is weakened by a multitude of foreign language translations and translation services. So learning German is actually no longer necessary in many places in Austria.

The result of this attitude is the Muslim parallel society which is not integrated nor willing to integrate and frequently has no respect for the indigenous population. There is hatred for the West. The law of the state has no effect in the parallel society. The police have no reach. Justice is determined by local — mostly Muslim — patterns.

Consider too, that a society is acting “positively” in terms of racism, when it does not insist upon its own standards from immigrants and closes one eye instead of helping.

What Does All This Mean for Coexistence With the Muslims?

Can western lifestyle (secular individualism with free will, voluntary religious practice and individual identity) even persist against Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles (group identity and nationalism)?

The basic elements of this Western lifestyle are being seriously challenged by Islam, even though these elements are the result of a long, at times painful, hard fought process of consciousness raising and are regarded by Western civilization as an achievement. These are, above all

Separation of religion and state

Religious freedom, freedom of expression even to its extreme

Religion and sexuality are private affairs

Art is allowed anything

Gender equality

Islam was recognized as a religion in Austria with the Islam Law of 1912. The requirement for recognition was “compatibility with the laws of the state.” Despite all warnings, this has not been checked for a long time. Persecution of Christians in non-Western countries, of secular immigrants, and Islamic writings (fatwas) inimical to the West could not bring an end to this turning of a blind eye.

The government is required to make clear its interpretive authority vs. Islam and to do away with Islam’s deviations from the laws on religious freedom. Put simply, the authorities must actualize the “explanatory remarks” and the “report of the special commission” concerning the law of 1912. This task has been waiting for nearly 100 years!

It is unacceptable that Islamic values have not been dealt with in the ordinary course of parliamentary discussions but has been demanded “from outside.”

The authorities must also clarify whether the concept “infidel,” by which Islam designates all non-Muslims as second-class people, is, in the sense of the above-mentioned framework resolution “public incitement to violence or hate against a group or member of a group of persons defined as a religion according to the criteria.”

The Structure of Turkey

Turkey is a regional power with a targeted domestic and foreign policy, by means of which it confronts a split EU foreign policy with great pertinacity. It pursues its own interest exclusively, often blatantly in contradiction to EU interests. Completely in tune with this foreign policy opportunism is the direction of its foreign policy with regard to the EU/Europe, but also the Islamic and central Asian area.

There is also no shortage of military interventions to effect its foreign policy goals. There have been ca. 3,000 Turkish soldiers stationed on Cyprus since 1974, although the grounds for intervention (overthrow of the Greek military regime) have been gone for years. Turkey also intervenes everywhere where it wants to assert its interests, not militarily, but with substantial political and economic pressure.

That includes diplomatic actions in the USA and the EU in regard to the Armenian genocide and the Kurdish separatist movement PKK. Still fresh in memory is the Turkish intervention against the installation of the Danish president as NATO general secretary. Freedom is not important to Turkey; Muslim sensibilities are. Nonetheless, it was rewarded for this extortion by a strengthening of US good will.

Turkey’s anti-Western positions are, of themselves, no surprise. In the OIC, Turkey appoints the general secretary and therefore functions as the important spokesman in the controversy between Islam and the West. That was true in the clash over the Mohammed cartoons and applies presently to the OIC’s efforts to subordinate the UN human rights declaration to sharia. By this means, criticism of the Islamic perception of human rights is to be stopped. Turkey has long since visibly returned to the Islamic camp. There is no question of a bridge between cultures. Atatürk and his secular orientation are nothing any more than lip service,

Turkey has a constitution adverse to the EU: political life and religious practice are under the purview of the military, even though the Islamic regime is working to reduce this influence. Religious practice and religious adherence are not a private matter as they are in the Western world.

The religious authority, Diyanet, regulates religious life for Sunni Islam, the majority faith. Other sects are disadvantaged. The once flourishing Christian community has shrunk to numerical insignificance. Even 20 million (Islamic?) Alewites are hampered in their religious practice by the Sunni majority.

Diyanet names the imams and sends them into countries with Turkish or Turkish-descended populations, for example, Germany and Austria. In both countries, Diyanet maintains branch offices like a colonial administration, to encourage the religious and national connections to Turkey — but not integration. From this grows a state within a state with the purpose of land acquisition. In Austria, this branch is called ATIB = Ayrupa-Türk Islam Birligi = Turkish Islamic Union for Cultural Cooperation (literally, European-Turkish Islamic Unification with no reference to cultural cooperation).

The Turkish laicité was decreed from above. It did not grow from the bottom up as in the West. The comparison with France is misleading. The Turkish state is not religion-neutral like France. On the contrary, it advantages Sunni Islam and discriminates against all other religions and beliefs.

The founder of the Turkish republic, Kemal Atatürk, introduced separation of religion ad state ca. 80 years ago. The military was established as the guardian of this lay establishment, which led to the more recent past and then to the ban on parties.

Despite all efforts at control, “Kemalism,” with its attempt to implant laicism in the population, has failed. To this day, there are two antagonistic groups in the population: the rural, religious people, including those who migrated to the cities and the secularly oriented city dwellers, whose numbers are dwindling.

Practically speaking, Turkey is in a culture war. Head-covering remains an ideologically highly explosive question. The ban on action for the ruling party the president and many other politicians because of misinterpretation of laicism found no majority with the constitutional judges.

Misunderstanding the facts, the EU took the side of an Islamic state and applauded the process. One resource for this cultural conflict is the influx of capital from Muslim sources. Anyone who practices Islam can count on financial support. This applies not only to residence, work, school and groceries, but also to entrepreneurs in finance and contracting.

The “moderate Islamist” government is taking Turkey step-by-step to an Islamic theocracy and in managing this is completing the necessary ideological re-orientation.

The Turkish constitution foresees not only the special role of the military and religious authorities but also the ethnic-religious centralized state. Accordingly, Turkey’s constitution recognizes no ethnic minorities, including, for instance, 12 million Kurds.

A striking nationalism is quickening in Turkey and protected by criminal laws (no insulting of Turkey, no criticism of official positions on Armenians, Cyprus). Testifying to this nationalism are the ubiquitous Atatürk posters and statues together with the country-wide motto, seen everywhere: “Everyone who is a Turk is fortunate.” This nationalism plus Islam explains the unwillingness and incapacity of Turks to integrate in Europe (Turkish organizations declared during the “Islam conference” of former interior minister Schäuble that they did not adhere to German values).

A horrifying demonstration of this religio-nationalistic attitude is the murder of three fellow employees in a bible print shop in Malatya in 2007. The perpetrators justified themselves with their battle against enemies of the faith and of the Turkish nation. SPD EU representative, Turkish-born Vural Öger, poured oil on the fire by placing the blame on the EU because of its push for reform in Turkish law.

An accommodation of the Turkish constitution to the EU would mean relinquishing these two pillars and thus the end of Atatürk’s Turkey. On the other hand, it is obvious that a similar process in the “negotiations,” would lead the EU to accept a military dictatorship or a theocracy into its ranks. In either case, it will become a plaything of Turkish politics. Reconciliation policy, which aims at an improvement in relations with neighbors, is contained within tight boundaries. The Armenian-Turkish thaw was followed quickly by a cold front.

Unperturbed by all these contradictions, Turkey steps forth with absolutely incomprehensible declarations and demands and talks about an entry date of 2013-15 in the following ways:

We have fulfilled all entry requirements and have a right to full membership.

The EU has no right to reject Turkey. Turkey reproaches the EU in the coarsest terms as being a Christian club, but is not above participating significantly in the OIC, an organization of exclusively Muslim countries. There is no Christian equivalent of the OIC.

As far as the Turkish president is concerned, the Balkans extends into Turkey, when it is a question of integrating the Balkans. He interprets the continuing visa requirement for Bosnia as an example of the disadvantaging of a Muslim country, compared to Serbia, for which the requirement was lifted recently.

Even in the European council, The (proposal of a) European flag with the cross — modeled on the pan-European movement — failed because of Turkey’s resistance.

Turkey accuses the EU of discrimination and complains about admonitions. In truth, it is getting special treatment like no member country has gotten until now. Even Croatia was treated more harshly. Turkey is oblivious and, like an invading army, ignores the sensitivities of the population of the EU.

Turkey is blazing its trail into the EU. It extorts agreement and shows no willingness to fulfill the entry requirements. It is following its usual extortionist negotiating tactics: flatter, be insulted, threaten. It wants a Turkish Europe, as expressed clearly in February, 2008 by the Turkish president, when he appeared in Cologne. Serbia was invited to apply on the basis of a Brussels decision. Turkey made its application at the time against the recommendation of the EU.

As a result of this unfair and tenacious negotiating tactic, Turkey is well represented in the committees and PR apparatus of the EU and is shaping its “own entry requirements.” Together with Spain, it is setting the tone in the UN initiative, “Alliance of Civilizations.” A tactically feeble EU confronts this Turkish determination, backed by the hegemonic interests of the USA. This explains why

All warning voices — no matter how high-ranking or competent — echo unheard.

The organs of the EU do not recognize that a full membership for Turkey does not bring a single advantage for most of the European population. Rather, exclusively substantial disadvantages.

The official organs of the EU consider their own population their greatest enemy and avoid polls and plebiscites.

All “pro” arguments are distortions of fact as, for example,

Turkey is the realization of the union of Islam and democracy and is a bridge to the Islamic world.

Based on its constitution, it is not a democracy in the Western sense of the word. It is a daily showplace of conflict between Islam and secularity. The Islamic world sees Turkey either as a lever and a part of its Islamization program or, because of its military pact with Israel, as an enemy.

The geopolitical position of Turkey and its military power would enhance the role of the EU in the Western world.

Quite the contrary: since the EU has no intervention policy of its own, Turkey would use the EU for its own purposes. In any case, the EU would be drawn into Turkey’s conflicts with its neighbors and destabilized along with it.

With the NABUCO gas pipeline, Turkey has a key role in providing for Europe’s energy needs.

Actually, it is not clear what gas will be fed into it.

The EU promised entry and Turkey has been waiting 40 years.

There is no democratically legitimized promise. During this time, Turkey has developed in a direction away from Europe. Indeed, in the 1970s, it expressly turned its back on the EU and/or Europe.

Without entry, the reforms in Turkey will collapse.

For European council charter member Turkey, the reforms are an obligation overdue for 10 years and were supposed to demonstrate Turkish self-interest. The EU has no obligation to grant a reward.

The EU needs Turkey’s economic potential for further development.

Entry is not based on economic special interests, especially if market potential can only be appreciated by means of financing by the investor and considerable risk and corruption exist. Turkey is one of the IMF’s biggest debtors, a developing country with typical characteristics, like greater participation in agriculture (about 30%), high unemployment (also among youth) and illegal employment, low per capita income, child labor, insufficient patent protection and unreliable law enforcement. On the basis of the existing customs union, there is already close economic linkage between the EU and Turkey. A full entry offers no additional economic possibilities.

EU — pardon me? What is that? The EU does not exist! A sacrifice of the intellect?

Hegemonic Claims Within the Community of Nations

Who determines the direction of things?

With no claim to thoroughness, and conscious of the remarks above, let the following picture apply: whoever separates from European navel-gazing and sees the world from outside, recognizes that, besides several countries active in world politics, Islam and international capital flow combined with providing energy and raw material are the hand on the tiller.

The USA as leading world power is presumably at the head. Its foreign policy is energy. China is noticeable by its securing of raw materials in Africa and elsewhere. In this race of world powers for oil and raw materials it is often unnoticed that the Islamic world is pursuing not only economic, but ideological interests — namely the Islamization of the world.

How much this Islamization has been strengthened is seen in the positive signals President Obama is sending the Muslim world. In his speech at Cairo University, he extended his hand to the Muslim world. Even the unconditional support of Israel is no longer his policy.

An international net of capital streams beyond the control of national governments, and also international organizations spans the entire world and makes its own decisions. Wall Street plays a prominent role. The motto: the financial position must remain attractive and that determines all other policies! That also applies to President Obama’s financial package.

The question arises: what the individual must and can do in this situation, especially those who feel a loyalty to European values.

The burden of our history compels us not only to reflect on what is past and vow “Never again,” but also to vigilance about the spirit of the times, the “mainstream.” In art, in many media, in the churches, in scholarship and in many political parties it is in style to turn a blind eye to the subjects Islam and Turkey. Restricted freedom of expression and fear of speaking out are dominant.

Making middle class society and Christianity — especially the Catholic Church — objects of contempt, the attack on the family, the demand for “gender mainstreaming” and equal standing for homosexual relationships are no substitute. Individual boundaries need to be set. Our civilization must not be the “show and tell” of a directionless good time society.

As in the past, so also today, looking at the truth and speaking out publicly is necessary. Especially because the past burdens our life to the present day. Whoever wants to learn the truth, will learn it. Excuses after the fact will mean nothing. Even if many people say; “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.”

Perhaps this time, with sufficient perseverance and courage, it will be possible to create a counterweight to the spirit of the times and to explain that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and not something else.

Or mankind may follow the path of greed, betrayal and indifference to apocalyptic conditions. The worldwide economic difficulties should be a warning that it is high time for a reversal. The Rhine maidens are demanding the return of the Rhine gold.

Requests to speak, letters to the editor, commentaries in newspapers, speeches and the like can, in sufficient number, can cause change. Perhaps the above comments will be able to help with that. Whoever fights can win; whoever does not fight has already lost. If future generations are to have any respect for us, we must intervene for truth and against looking the other way — to the point of civil disobedience.

Out future will be decided not only by the achievements of the past, but by a conscious intervention of European society on behalf of it own values — especially family values and economic solidarity.

Isolation of the individual and increase of the precarious economic conditions could give impetus to a slogan like “Islam is the answer.” Unalloyed individualism will bring a swift dissolution to any society.

Famous names tell us:

Indifference is the mildest form of intolerance. (Karl Jaspers)

What you inherited from your ancestors — work to earn and possess it. (Goethe)

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. (Orwell)

Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. (Ronald Reagan)

My greatest disappointment is the recognition that humanity does not learn from experience. (Doris Lessing)

Difficulties are not overcome by not talking about them. (Berthold Brecht)

Reason becomes nonsense, blessing becomes plague. (Goethe)

Truth is the most precious thing we have. Let us deal with it frugally. (Mark Twain)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Notes:

*

Pascal Bruckner, 2008, “The Guilt Complex”: “All modern thinking can be reduced to the schematic denunciation of the West, with emphasis on hypocrisy, violence and heinousness.”

”The European bad conscience, based on imperialism, fascism and racism has gripped the continent, and is destroying its creativity, its feeling of self-worth, and is decimating its optimism.”